Delhi District Court
Akbar @ Akki vs Trilochan Singh on 31 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors.
MACT No. 319/2023
Akbar Khan
S/o Sh. Abbu Khan
R/o Plot No.54, Deep Enclave-2, Vikas Nagar
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi
Delhi - 110 059.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Tirlochan Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh
R/o H-361, First Floor
Vikas Puri, West Delhi - 110018.
2. Swinder Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh
R/o BL-95, 1st Floor, L-Block
Hari Nagar, Delhi-110064
3. Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. (Insurer)
having its office at:
IFCI Tower, B-Block, 5th Floor
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110 019.
....Respondents
Date of institution : 28.03.2023
Date of concluding arguments : 31.10.2025
Date of decision : 31.10.2025
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter "DAR") was filed by the investigating officer, ASI Raj Kumar, in FIR number 71/2023 dated 27.01.2023, lodged at Police Station Uttam Nagar under Sections 279/337 of the IPC regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner, Sh. Akbar Khan, MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 21 in a road accident involving a car bearing registration number DL 7CL 3177. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "MV Act"). 1.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Tirlochan Singh, is the driver and respondent no. 2, Sh. Swinder Singh, is the owner of the said car. Respondent no. 3, Go Digit General Insurance Ltd., is the insurer of the said car. DAR
2. As per the DAR, on 26.01.2023, the petitioner was travelling on his scooty bearing registration no. DL 9SCG 1889, along with his wife and children, from Uttam Nagar to their house in Vikas Nagar, Delhi. At about 7 p.m., when they reached near Shiv Vihar, Ganda Naala, a car bearing registration number DL 7CL 3177, being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction. Despite the petitioner steering his scooty towards the extreme side of the road near the pavement, the offending car nevertheless struck the scooty. As a result, the petitioner, his wife, and children fell onto the road. The petitioner sustained injuries on his hands and legs, and his wife also suffered injuries. Respondent no. 1 stopped the car, approached the petitioner, and disclosed his name. The petitioner noticed that respondent no. 1 smelled of alcohol. A crowd gathered at the spot and one of the bystanders called for an ambulance. The petitioner and his wife were removed to DDU Hospital for treatment in the ambulance.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondent nos. 1 & 3. 3.1 Respondent no. 1 appeared but did not file any written statement. 3.2 Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that the offending car bearing registration number DL 7CL 3177 was duly insured with it. However, it has denied its liability inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident the respondent no. 1 was driving under the influence of alcohol.
3.3 Respondent no. 2 was found to be not residing at the address mentioned on the registration certificate of the offending vehicle and could not be traced, MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 21 as per report dated 20.05.2023 of the Investigating Officer. Therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.07.2023 of my learned predecessor. In the said report dated 20.05.2023, it was also mentioned that respondent no.2 is the son-in-law of respondent no.1. Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 29.08.2023 by my learned predecessor:
(1) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 26.01.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177 being driven by Sh. Tirlochan respondent no. 1 and owned by Sh. Swinder Singh respondent no. 2? OPP. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 5.1 The petitioner deposed to the circumstances of the accident in a manner consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. He claimed that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of car bearing registration number DL 7CL 3177. He further deposed regarding his employment and the expenses incurred by him on treatment.
5.2 The petitioner has relied on the following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 is the treatment record of the petitioner. Ex. PW 1/2 is the set of his medical bills.
Ex. PW 1/3 is the DAR.
Ex. PW 1/4 is the copy of his Aadhar card.
5.3 In his cross-examination, the petitioner deposed that the offending vehicle came from the opposite side and hit his motorcycle [sic, scooty] from his MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 21 right side.
6. After completion of petitioner's evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence.
7. The present claim petition and claim petition bearing MACT no. 320/2023 titled as Mamta vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. arise from the same accident. At this stage, both these petitions were consolidated for the purpose of recording of evidence with the present petition as the lead petition, vide order dated 06.02.2024 of my learned predecessor.
8. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not lead any evidence.
9. The respondent no. 3 examined Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Manager Legal Claims, as R3W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. R3W1/1.
9.1 R3W1 deposed that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. She further deposed that the respondent no. 3 is relying on the DAR. She further deposed that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol and has been charge-sheeted under Section 185 of MV Act. She further deposed that the same amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the respondent no. 3 is not liable to indemnify the insured.
9.2 She relied on the following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. R3W1/A is the attested copy of her authorization letter. Ex. R3W1/B is the copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions.
Ex. R3W1/C is the copy of MLC of respondent no. 1, which is part of the DAR.
10. I have heard learned counsels Sh. R.K. Singh and Ms. Rajput Simmy for the petitioner, and Sh. Heramb Sharma for the respondent no. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 to address arguments. I have perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 21 Issue No. 1:
Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 26.01.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177 being driven by Sh. Tirlochan respondent no. 1 and owned by Sh. Swinder Singh respondent no. 2? OPP.
11. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on his testimony as well as the DAR.
12. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that the respondent no. 3 be exonerated from liability on the ground that the respondent no. 1 was driving the offending car at the time of accident under the influence of alcohol.
13. Before dealing with the contention of the learned counsel for respondent no.3, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 21 offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 21
17. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
18. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
18.1 In the present case, the accident took place on 26.01.2023 at around 7 pm. The very next day, that is, on 27.01.2023, the petitioner lodged FIR no. 71 at Police Station Uttam Nagar. Hence, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR.
18.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 under Sections 279/337/338 of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act showing the involvement of offending car bearing registration no. DL 7 CL 3177.
18.3 It is not in dispute that in the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned JMFC-08, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, vide order dated 07.11.2023 in Criminal Case no. 3663/2023 titled State vs. Trilachan Singh, has framed charges against respondent no. 1 and the said case is now listed for prosecution evidence.
18.4 As per the seizure memos dated 27.01.2023, the scooty bearing registration no. DL 9S CG 1889 of the petitioner as well as the offending car bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177 were found in accidental condition at the spot MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 21 of accident and seized therefrom by the investigating officer, ASI Raj Kumar.
18.5 The Mechanical Inspection Reports dated 28.01.2023 of the scooty bearing registration no. DL 9S CG 1889 of the petitioner as well as the offending car bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177 show that both the vehicles suffered damage.
18.6 The deposition of the petitioner regarding the accident and negligence of the respondent no. 1 is consistent and inspires confidence.
18.7 The respondent no. 1 has neither denied his involvement in the accident nor negligence on his part by either filing his written statement or by appearing as a witness.
18.8 The medical documents forming part of the DAR further lend credence to its contents. MLC no. 00836 of the petitioner and MLC no. 1120 of Smt. Mamta, his wife, both dated 26.01.2023 and issued by DDU Hospital, reflect that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries while his wife simple injuries in the accident.
19. Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177, being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh. Tirlochan Singh and owned by respondent no. 2 Sh. Swinder Singh, thereby causing injuries to the petitioner.
Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
20. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In view of findings on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the grievous MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 21 injuries suffered by him in the road accident.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
22. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he spent ₹1,00,000/- on his treatment.
The treatment record and medical bills of the petitioner (Ex. PW1/ 2) placed on record amount to ₹ 21,400/-.
In view of this Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled only to payment towards original medical bills produced by him. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to ₹ 21,400/- towards medicines and treatment.
23. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has further claimed that MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 21 he spent ₹ 90,000/- on conveyance and ₹90,000/- on special diet. However, no documentary proof has been placed on record in support of the said claims. Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries, it can reasonably be inferred that he must have incurred expenses on special diet as well as on conveyance. Accordingly, a sum of ₹20,000/- is awarded towards special diet and ₹20,000/- towards conveyance.
24. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed a sum of ₹ 90,000/- towards attendant. However, no documentary proof has been produced to establish that any attendant was hired.
24.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. In view thereof, a sum of ₹ 20,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured
25. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has further claimed that at the time of accident he was doing private work and was earning ₹ 50,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence regarding his income, employment or educational qualifications has been furnished by the petitioner. He has not even disclosed the nature of work performed by him.
25.1 As per his aadhar card (Ex. PW 1/4), the petitioner is a resident of Delhi.
Since the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and has failed to prove his income, the same is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as applicable to Delhi. The minimum wages payable in Delhi to unskilled workers on 26.01.2023, that is, the date of the accident, were ₹16,792/- per MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 21 month. Accordingly, the income of the petitioner is taken to be ₹16,792/- per month.
26. In the present case, the accident occurred on 26.01.2023 and the last prescription from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital is dated 27.05.2023. Having regard to the nature of injuries, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner required about four months for recovery. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to ₹ 67,168/- [16,792 x 4 = 67,168] towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
27. The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment As per the report dated 31.01.2023 of Max Care Path Lab. (Ex. PW 1/1), the petitioner suffered undisplaced oblique fracture in distal shaft of Tibia. In the given circumstances, petitioner is held entitled to ₹ 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹ 15,000/- towards mental and physical shock. Other heads claimed by the petitioner:
28. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has further claimed ₹5 Lacs towards future treatment. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner for future treatment or under any other head.
29. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
1. Medicines & Treatment ₹ 21,400 /-
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 21
2. Special Diet ₹ 20,000 /-
3. Conveyance ₹ 20,000/-
4. Attendant Charges ₹ 20,000/-
5. Loss of Earning during the period of treatment ₹ 67,168/-
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
6. Pain & Suffering ₹ 25,000/-
7. Mental & Physical Shock ₹ 15,000/-
Total ₹1,88,568/- (rounded off to
₹ 1,89,000/-)
Liability
30. The respondent nos. 1 & 2, being the principal tortfeasors, are primarily liable to make payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner. It is admitted by the respondent no. 3 that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 7CL 3177 was insured with it on the day of the accident against third party risks.
30.1 Respondent no. 3 has relied on the MLC of respondent no. 1 and the DAR to contend that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending car under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and the same amounted to breach of policy conditions. It is further contended that since the accident occurred on 26.01.2023, that is, after the amendments to the MV Act came into force on 01.04.2022, recovery rights cannot be granted in cases involving breach of policy conditions and the Insurance Company must, therefore, be exonerated from all liability. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mohd Javed through Shehnaz & Others, INSC 2025: DHC: 5688.
30.2 Per contra, the petitioner contended that despite the amendments to the MV Act, the principle of "pay and recover" remains in effect. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Arti Devi and Others 2025 ACJ 265.
30.3 The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, has significantly altered the provisions of the MV Act regarding recovery rights. The proviso to Section MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 21 149(4) of the unamended MV Act, which embodied the "pay and recover"
principle, has been omitted. The amended Section 150(2)(a)(ii) of MV Act expressly recognises driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as laid down in Section 185, as a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 30.4 In Mohd Javed (supra), the Appellant Insurance Company challenged the grant of recovery rights by the Tribunal after the amendments to the MV Act came into force. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the grant of recovery rights was clearly an inadvertent error on part of the Tribunal as the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced below:
"4. The challenge in the Impugned Award is made by the Appellant essentially on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that the testimony of the Investigating Officer [hereinafter referred to as "IO"] in the case does not inspire confidence. Secondly, it is contended that recovery rights have been wrongly granted by the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is contended that the future medical expenses, attendant charges and special diet has been made on a speculative basis by the learned Tribunal.
5. So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that appears to be an inadvertent error by the learned Trial Court since, after the amendment to Section 166(3) of the MV Act with effect from 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi granted liberty to the Appellant Insurance Company to approach the Tribunal regarding the erroneous grant of recovery rights:
"10. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he will limit his challenge to the grant of recovery rights, and that the Appellant may be permitted to withdraw the present Appeal to take appropriate steps before the learned Tribunal in this behalf.
11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. The pending Application also stands closed. Liberty is however, granted to the Appellant to approach the learned Tribunal on the aspect of wrongful grant of recovery rights, albeit in accordance with law."
30.5 In Arti Devi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held:
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 21 "38. The court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 1.4.2022 and 'pay and recover' principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the statute protecting third party interest.
Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly."
30.6 Clearly, there exists a conflict between the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd. Javed (supra) and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Arti Devi (supra) with regard to the applicability of the principle of "pay and recover" in respect of accidents occurring after 01.04.2022, that is, subsequent to the coming into force of the amendments to the MV Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that, post-amendment, the recovery rights cannot be granted. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, however, has taken a contrary view and held that the principle of "pay and recover" continues to apply. 30.7 In the present case, MLC no. 1121 (Ex. R3W1/C) of DDU Hospital reflects that in the medical examination, conducted on 26.01.2023 at 10:15 p.m., the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of respondent no. 1 was found to be 103.6 mg/100 ml, far in excess of the legally permissible limit of 30 mg/100 ml. The petitioner stated in the FIR that after the accident respondent no. 1 smelled of alcohol. The police, in the charge-sheet, have invoked Section 185 of the MV Act against respondent no. 1 for driving under the influence of alcohol. The evidence led by respondent no. 3 has remained unrebutted.
30.8 In view of the deposition of R3W1, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, the contents of the FIR read with the MLC of respondent no. 1, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this Tribunal holds that respondent no. 1 was MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 21 driving the offending vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, which amounted to breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.
30.9 In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohd Javed (supra), which is binding on this Tribunal, it is held that in accident cases arising after the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act came into force on 01.04.2022, recovery rights cannot be granted to the Insurance Company for breach of policy conditions. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 is absolved of its liability towards the petitioner in respect of the accident in question. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount, along with accrued interest, to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
31. In view of findings on issue number 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹ 1,89,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition, that is, 28.03.2023 till the date of compliance, that is, 30.11.2025. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount.
Direction(s) to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2:
32. As per the provisions of Section 168(3) of MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 1, Sh.
Tirlochan Singh, and respondent no. 2, Sh. Swinder Singh, jointly and severally, in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi; IFSC Code SBIN0011566; MICR Code 110002483) MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 21 by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner.
Release
33. The statement of the petitioner regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details Sh. Akbar Khan A/c no. 161701000007454 at Indian Overseas Bank, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi; IFSC Code: IOBA0001617.
34. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
Schedule of Disbursal
36. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment and loss of earning during the period of treatment, fifty percent (50 %) of the award amount be immediately released to the petitioner.
The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the award amount of the petitioner be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 21 Directions to the Bank(s)
37. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka and the Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi. are directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Managers are further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDR shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for his MACT account. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
38. The Form-XVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 26.01.2023
2. Name of injured: Akbar Khan
3. Age of the injured: 37 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Private Work (as claimed)
5. Income of the injured: ₹ 16,792/- per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous injury; undisplaced oblique fracture in distal shaft of Tibia.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: DDU Hospital, Delhi and Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Delhi.
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 21
8. Period of hospitalization: Nil.
9. Whether any permanent disability? No.
10. Computation of Compensation Sl. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹ 21,400/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹ 20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹20,000 /-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹20,000 /-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity Nil.
(vii) Loss of income ₹67,168 /-
(viii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹15,000 /-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹ 25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, As above.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Disability not assessed.
and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Not Applicable expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Not Applicable capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income -(Income x % Not Applicable Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹1,88,568/- (rounded off to ₹1,89,000/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 21 petition (28.03.2023) till the date of compliance (30.11.2025).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of ₹36,737/-
award
17. Total amount including interest up ₹ 2,25,737/-
to the date of award
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Account Transfer amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the 30.11.2025 award
39. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 26.01.2023
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Accident Not Known Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not Known Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not Known owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not Known Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Not Known VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 28.03.2023 Detailed Accident Report (DAR) MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 21
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not Known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Not Known.
Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) of the Not Applicable.
offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 31.10.2025
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimants(s) 28.03.2023 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 21.05.2024 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the Plot No.54, Deep Enclave-2, Vikas claimant(s) Nagar, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi - 110 059
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 21
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
40. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
41. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Managers of the following banks for their information/compliance:
(i) State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi, and
(ii) Indian Overseas Bank, Vikas Puri Branch, New Delhi.
42. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
43. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
44. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 15.12.2025 for compliance report.
45. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ
SAINI
RAJ Date:
SAINI 2025.10.31
17:05:07 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 31.10.2025 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 319/2023 Akbar Khan vs. Tirlochan Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 21